Attention!!! Pro Sports Daily will be down on Wednesday morning from 5:00am - 7:00am eastern time for database maintenance. All Sports Direct Inc. properties will be down during this scheduled outage.
Sorry for any inconvenience that this outage may cause.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I think anyone that gets elected has a pretty high approval rating before they are sworn in. If they didn't have a high approval rating they wouldn't get elected. Especially when everyone believes in his campaign on "hope"

Oh I know that. Bush and Clinton were each in the mid-60s when they were elected. I'm just pointing out that it's quite likely the same people who adamantly support Bush that are not going to accept anything Obama does.

Member of the Owlluminati

Originally Posted by James Madison

"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."

And when Bush's approval ratings skyrocketed after 9/11, did you "blame" that on the media, too?

Something makes me suspect that the answer is, "NO."

The media didn't do anything to champion Bush so why would the media be viewed as responsible for that? However, the media IS to blame for things like the NY Times running multiple front-page stories on Saddam's WMD's in 2001-2002, and then running Abu Graihab 14 times on their front page. The media is to blame for running Bush down every chance they get, and for getting in their parting shots at Bush now after Bush facilitated a very classy & easy transition for Obama, and gave a very well-done parting farewell address.

For the record, Bush's final approval isn't 22%, it's in the low 30s. But feel free to find the lowest possible poll rating you can find and tout it all over the place for the novelty. Classy.

The media didn't do anything to champion Bush so why would the media be viewed as responsible for that? However, the media IS to blame for things like the NY Times running multiple front-page stories on Saddam's WMD's in 2001-2002, and then running Abu Graihab 14 times on their front page. The media is to blame for running Bush down every chance they get, and for getting in their parting shots at Bush now after Bush facilitated a very classy & easy transition for Obama, and gave a very well-done parting farewell address.

For the record, Bush's final approval isn't 22%, it's in the low 30s. But feel free to find the lowest possible poll rating you can find and tout it all over the place for the novelty. Classy.

Every president's failures end up on the front page. Bush just had more of them.

Yeah guys. The U.S. just suffered the worst attack on its soil in history, and you want the press to criticize one sentence from one speech? Get real.

As I recall, the press had more important things to talk about like, oh, what was going on in NYC, how many people were dead, what actually happened, who was really behind the attack, what was the U.S. military response going to be, etc. You know, little things like that.

I don't really remember the press doing much commentary on Bush's speeches. Just basically presenting the speeches, presenting the events, and commenting on what to expect in the near future.

Well as much as they don't want to admit it now, just about everyone was on board with the Iraq War back in mid-late 2002 and early 2003. Then came the failure to find WMD's, and Bush's political opponents pounced on that & totally ignored any potential reason as to why no WMDs were found despite Saddam having used chemical weapons against his own people 15 years before the 2003 invasion.

Again the media was just basically trying to keep up with the events as they were happening. The anti-Bush vitriol didn't really start until the WMD's that the world's (not just Bush's, the world's) intelligence reports all said were there were not found. For more information on how the world viewed Saddam & his WMD's, Google U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441.

Still amazing to me how people harp on the WMDs & bin Laden not being captured, and basically ignore how 50 million people in Iraq/Afganistan are no longer living under oppressive regimes. Not to say a failure to find WMDs wasn't a bad thing, but it's a glass half full/half empty thing to me. Obviously those with certain political motivations are going to see the glass through that prism. As for me, I believe the Iraq War was ultimately handled in the right way with the troop surge after it was being handled the wrong way for a few years. I think objective history will ultimately judge the Iraq War in a similar way.

Well as much as they don't want to admit it now, just about everyone was on board with the Iraq War back in mid-late 2002 and early 2003. Then came the failure to find WMD's, and Bush's political opponents pounced on that & totally ignored any potential reason as to why no WMDs were found despite Saddam having used chemical weapons against his own people 15 years before the 2003 invasion.

Again the media was just basically trying to keep up with the events as they were happening. The anti-Bush vitriol didn't really start until the WMD's that the world's (not just Bush's, the world's) intelligence reports all said were there were not found. For more information on how the world viewed Saddam & his WMD's, Google U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441.

Still amazing to me how people harp on the WMDs & bin Laden not being captured, and basically ignore how 50 million people in Iraq/Afganistan are no longer living under oppressive regimes. Not to say a failure to find WMDs wasn't a bad thing, but it's a glass half full/half empty thing to me. Obviously those with certain political motivations are going to see the glass through that prism. As for me, I believe the Iraq War was ultimately handled in the right way with the troop surge after it was being handled the wrong way for a few years. I think objective history will ultimately judge the Iraq War in a similar way.

While getting rid of Saddam was certainly vital -- count me among those that think he's a bad man -- I was certainly against the invasion from the outset. I don't think the administration took the proper course of action. And, a full scale ground invasion never should have been in the cards. Where we succeeded in taking down the Talibs in Afghanistan (support of dissidents and the Northern Coalition) we failed in Iraq (full scale blitzkrieg invasion).

But, the way the war was waged is a topic wholly unto itself.

I also think you're incredibly mistaken about the "world's intelligence" and pre-invasion glee and support for invasion. Why then, was there such a fiasco over the United States invading to begin with? Remember France? Germany? Russia? China? Here's a nice little map showing support, or lack thereof, for an invasion of Iraq -- especially before the Weapon's Inspectors had the opportunity to complete their job. Wiki -- nice collection of the countries for, and against, the invasion.

But, the big thing is your last paragraph. That's where I have my biggest problem. It's the idea that since Saddam is no longer ruling the country, their lives are so much better. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead, millions more are displaced, the country has waged a civil war (that will likely continue and ignite further once we finally leave), utilities are spotty (at best), and war lords are developing and carving out domains. We have utterly decimated their country and yet people have the gall to say that we're leaving them better off.

Well as much as they don't want to admit it now, just about everyone was on board with the Iraq War back in mid-late 2002 and early 2003. Then came the failure to find WMD's, and Bush's political opponents pounced on that & totally ignored any potential reason as to why no WMDs were found despite Saddam having used chemical weapons against his own people 15 years before the 2003 invasion.

Again the media was just basically trying to keep up with the events as they were happening. The anti-Bush vitriol didn't really start until the WMD's that the world's (not just Bush's, the world's) intelligence reports all said were there were not found. For more information on how the world viewed Saddam & his WMD's, Google U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441.

Still amazing to me how people harp on the WMDs & bin Laden not being captured, and basically ignore how 50 million people in Iraq/Afganistan are no longer living under oppressive regimes. Not to say a failure to find WMDs wasn't a bad thing, but it's a glass half full/half empty thing to me. Obviously those with certain political motivations are going to see the glass through that prism. As for me, I believe the Iraq War was ultimately handled in the right way with the troop surge after it was being handled the wrong way for a few years. I think objective history will ultimately judge the Iraq War in a similar way.

they didn't ignore those reasons. they openly reported that none were found because there were none, the sanctions were being effective, and that all info presented to the UN was disproved. I think they did there job, what did they miss?

About misreporting...I thought the whole Scooter Libby thing was horribly misreported, and misunderstood.

I thought the financial crisis was misreported as well, and ended up getting lumped into "Damn that Bush!!!" type stuff.

Not all that much though.

No. It's the idea that they have the potential to get better.

We've been decimating their country for a while now. It didn't start with the invasion.

the potential,but isnt that more their call to make if they wanted that potential and not ours.and gone to i dunno all the neighboring counties that surrounded him and gone to them if they wanted that help,seeing as they all hated him.and kept the overthrow if they wanted one in an arab context.instead of big white boys(mostly christian)from half way across the world telling them we'll forcing it on you weather you want it or not..and i know you could go to say iran or s.a. and gotten help because they hate them,hell even us and plead for that help.but we're giving it to you ready or not,dont have to ask

i'll give an analogy,i'm assuming your a reb soo..lets say back during clinton.you would have been ok with china or iran invading the u.s. to "liberate us"(without much outcry to them to do this,but alot here and around the world against it),invade us and adopt their style.because,even though you dont like the leader,to them it gives us the potential for better,you'd be ok with that?